property: isDisjointFrom

[nielsklazenga]

isDisjointFrom (property)

Identifier	http://rs.tdwg.org/tcs/terms/isDisjointFrom
Type	http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property
Label	is disjoint from
	required: No — repeatable: Yes
Definition	The subject and object taxon concepts have non-overlapping taxonomic meanings, i.e. they do not have any members in common
Usage	isDisjointFrom can be used as a property on a Taxon Concept object, or as the value of the mappingRelation property on a Taxon Concept Mapping object. In both cases both the subject and object are Taxon Concepts.

Comments

The isDisjointFrom relation is symmetrical, so if A isDisjointFrom B then B isDisjointFrom A, but not transitive, so, if A isDisjointFrom B and B isDisjointFrom C, it does not follow that A isDisjointFrom C.

This relation can also be written as the formula A | B.

Examples

[] a tcs:TaxonConcept 
    dcterms:title "Campylopus introflexus sec. Koperski & al. 2000" ; 
    tcs:accordingTo <https://www.tropicos.org/reference/9022656> ;
    tcs:taxonName <https://www.tropicos.org/name/35156181> ;
    tcs:isDisjointFrom [ rdf:value [ a tcs:TaxonConcept ;
                    dcterms:title "Campylopus introflexus sec. Mönkemeyer 1927" ;
                    tcs:accordingTo <https://www.tropicos.org/publication/700> ;
                    tcs:taxonName <https://www.tropicos.org/name/35156181> ] ;
            rdfs:comment """Mit dem Taxon in Mönkemeyer ist der Beschreibung 
                    nach eindeutig *C. pilifer Brid. (C. polytrichoides De 
                    Not.), eine ozeanisch-submediterrane Art, gemeint. In 
                    älteren Floren wird C. introflexus, bevor diese Art von 
                    Störmer (1958) für Europa nachgewiesen wurde, regelmäßig als 
                    Synonym von C. polytrichoides aufgeführt oder in diesem 
                    Sinne verwendet (vgl. u. a. Demaret & Castagne 1961: 
                    203)""" ] .

# Because of the comment it is better to use a Taxon Concept Mapping object
# here.

[TaxonConcept-isDisjointFrom-example-1.ttl] [TaxonConcept-isDisjointFrom-example-1.jsonld]

[] a tcs:TaxonConceptMapping ;
    tcs:mappingAccordingTo <https://www.tropicos.org/reference/9022656> ;
    tcs:mappingRelation tcs:isDisjointFrom ;
    tcs:subjectTaxonConcept [ a tcs:TaxonConcept ;
            dcterms:title "Campylopus introflexus sec. Koperski & al. 2000" ; 
            tcs:accordingTo <https://www.tropicos.org/reference/9022656> ;
            tcs:taxonName <https://www.tropicos.org/name/35156181> ] ;
    tcs:objectTaxonConcept [ a tcs:TaxonConcept ;
            dcterms:title "Campylopus introflexus sec. Mönkemeyer 1927" ;
            tcs:accordingTo <https://www.tropicos.org/publication/700> ;
            tcs:taxonName <https://www.tropicos.org/publication/700> ] ;
    rdfs:comment """Mit dem Taxon in Mönkemeyer ist der Beschreibung nach 
            eindeutig *C. pilifer Brid. (C. polytrichoides De Not.), eine 
            ozeanisch-submediterrane Art, gemeint. In älteren Floren wird C. 
            introflexus, bevor diese Art von Störmer (1958) für Europa 
            nachgewiesen wurde, regelmäßig als Synonym von C. polytrichoides 
            aufgeführt oder in diesem Sinne verwendet (vgl. u. a. Demaret & 
            Castagne 1961: 203)""" .

[TaxonConceptMapping-isDisjointFrom-example-2.ttl] [TaxonConceptMapping-isDisjointFrom-example-2.jsonld]

# Andropogon glaucopsis sec. BONAP 2014 is disjoint from Andropogon virginicus sec. Weakley 2006
[] a tcs:TaxonConceptMapping ;
    tcs:mappingAccordingTo <https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-160220> ;
    tcs:mappingRelation tcs:isDisjointFrom ;
    tcs:subjectTaxonConcept [ a tcs:TaxonConcept ;
        dcterms:title "Andropogon glaucopsis sec. BONAP 2014" ;
        tcs:taxonName <https://www.ipni.org/n/387942-1> ;
        tcs:accordingTo <http://bonap.net/napa#2014> ] ;
    tcs:objectTaxonConcept [ a tcs:TaxonConcept ;
        dcterms:title "Andropogon virginicus sec. Weakley 2006" ;
        tcs:taxonName <https://www.ipni.org/n/388740-1> ;
        tcs:accordingTo <http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/FloraArchives/WeakleyFlora_2006-Jan.pdf> ] .

[TaxonConceptMapping-isDisjointFrom-example-1.ttl] [TaxonConceptMapping-isDisjointFrom-example-1.jsonld]

Mapping

TCS	//TaxonRelationship[@type=”excludes”]
TDWG Ontology	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/TaxonConcept#excludes
RCC-5	Disjoint – DR(x, y)

[nielsklazenga]

Obviously, we need to limit the scope of the excludes relationship type, so that it is not applied to an almost incomprehensibly large number of cases (quoting @deepreef in tdwg/tnc#45).

Franz & Peet (2009) say the following:

The term ‘excludes’ means that not even the concepts’ respective type specimens yield a match. This is a rare situation within the Linnaean system and indicative of an error, such as homonyms based on unrelated taxa.

However, their example in Table 4, based on Fig. 3, which is taken from Koperski et al. (2000):

Platydictya Berk. sec. Koperski et al. (2000) | Amblystegium Schimp. sec. Frahm & Frey (1992)

is not indicative of an error and was not made in Koperski et al. (2000).

We can probably just leave it to people's discretion as to when an excludes assertion is not a truism.

[nfranz]

The other audience are logic reasoners, which need to somehow deductively close an alignment of two or more taxonomies by narrowly specifying (indeed) every RCC-5 articulation between every possible pair of taxonomic concepts. So with, say, 50x50 concepts, that's 2,500 articulations to be deduced before the blank screen may possibly transform into a graph. In my experience it is quite challenging for a human to intuit just how creative a logic reasoner can get (if that's the right way to say it), in terms of finding possible but not intended-by-the-expert alignment solutions. The best way to preclude these scenarios from clouding the intended picture is to spell out that certain concept pairs are exclusive of each other. In this logic reasoning context, "excludes" is often an invaluable relationship to assert.

[nielsklazenga]

Thanks @nfranz , I had not thought of that. So what might look like a truism to a human might still help those logical reasoners resolve other relationships. We will work that in.

[nielsklazenga]

I propose to rename this to 'disjointFrom' (or something like that).

[camwebb]

Or even just disjoint?

[nielsklazenga]

That's fine with me too, but I think we should have consistency among terms: either all verbs or all adjectives. So, if we change this to disjoint, we should change the other ones to adjectives as well.

[nielsklazenga]

Just seeing now that what I suggested was also not a verb.

[nielsklazenga]

isDisjointFrom or isDisjointWith?